<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_002200</id>
	<title>Hubble Builds 3D Dark Matter Map</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269865800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.astroengine.com/" rel="nofollow">astroengine</a> writes <i>"Dark matter can't be spotted directly because it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e. it doesn't emit any radiation and reflects no light). However, its gravitational influence on space-time can bend light from its otherwise straight path (a phenomenon known as 'lensing'). Using a sophisticated algorithm to scan a comprehensive Hubble Space Telescope survey of the cosmos, astronomers have plotted a map of 'weak lensing' events. Combining this with red shift measurements from ground-based observatories, <a href="http://news.discovery.com/space/hubble-3d-map-universe-dark-matter.html">they've produced a strikingly colorful 3D map of the structure of dark matter</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>astroengine writes " Dark matter ca n't be spotted directly because it does n't interact with electromagnetic radiation ( i.e .
it does n't emit any radiation and reflects no light ) .
However , its gravitational influence on space-time can bend light from its otherwise straight path ( a phenomenon known as 'lensing ' ) .
Using a sophisticated algorithm to scan a comprehensive Hubble Space Telescope survey of the cosmos , astronomers have plotted a map of 'weak lensing ' events .
Combining this with red shift measurements from ground-based observatories , they 've produced a strikingly colorful 3D map of the structure of dark matter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>astroengine writes "Dark matter can't be spotted directly because it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e.
it doesn't emit any radiation and reflects no light).
However, its gravitational influence on space-time can bend light from its otherwise straight path (a phenomenon known as 'lensing').
Using a sophisticated algorithm to scan a comprehensive Hubble Space Telescope survey of the cosmos, astronomers have plotted a map of 'weak lensing' events.
Combining this with red shift measurements from ground-based observatories, they've produced a strikingly colorful 3D map of the structure of dark matter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652798</id>
	<title>Here's the explanation</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1269792180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/goodies/printlayouts/html/heic1005.html" title="spacetelescope.org">http://www.spacetelescope.org/goodies/printlayouts/html/heic1005.html</a> [spacetelescope.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.spacetelescope.org/goodies/printlayouts/html/heic1005.html [ spacetelescope.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.spacetelescope.org/goodies/printlayouts/html/heic1005.html [spacetelescope.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652100</id>
	<title>FAKE</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1269784980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>looks photoshopped to me</htmltext>
<tokenext>looks photoshopped to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks photoshopped to me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31668710</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter doesn't exist.</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1269954180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dark matter sounds really dull, hypothetical particles which only interact with gravity. This would mean about 23\% of the Universe's mass is just boring stuff, while only 5\% is interesting matter like us.
But what if dark matter does have other interactions? If there were other forces of nature beyond the 4 we know of then dark matter maybe as interesting at normal matter. If these other forces did not interact with our form of matter we would not have found them yet. Maybe to dark matter, we are the dark matter. It would be cool if there was another "shadow universe" which we can hardly notice yet was just as rich as our own.
Fun but probably not true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark matter sounds really dull , hypothetical particles which only interact with gravity .
This would mean about 23 \ % of the Universe 's mass is just boring stuff , while only 5 \ % is interesting matter like us .
But what if dark matter does have other interactions ?
If there were other forces of nature beyond the 4 we know of then dark matter maybe as interesting at normal matter .
If these other forces did not interact with our form of matter we would not have found them yet .
Maybe to dark matter , we are the dark matter .
It would be cool if there was another " shadow universe " which we can hardly notice yet was just as rich as our own .
Fun but probably not true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dark matter sounds really dull, hypothetical particles which only interact with gravity.
This would mean about 23\% of the Universe's mass is just boring stuff, while only 5\% is interesting matter like us.
But what if dark matter does have other interactions?
If there were other forces of nature beyond the 4 we know of then dark matter maybe as interesting at normal matter.
If these other forces did not interact with our form of matter we would not have found them yet.
Maybe to dark matter, we are the dark matter.
It would be cool if there was another "shadow universe" which we can hardly notice yet was just as rich as our own.
Fun but probably not true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652114</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269785160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X = X<br>Y = Y<br>Z = RGB</p><p>FTFA: "the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X = XY = YZ = RGBFTFA : " the white , cyan , and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X = XY = YZ = RGBFTFA: "the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</id>
	<title>Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>Dilligent</author>
	<datestamp>1269783720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA.
<br>
I agree it's a nice picture but there seems to be no explanation as to what these colours actually mean,
let alone any kind of conclusion drawn from what I presume to be "pockets of dark matter".
<br>
<br>
Anyone care to enlighten me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA .
I agree it 's a nice picture but there seems to be no explanation as to what these colours actually mean , let alone any kind of conclusion drawn from what I presume to be " pockets of dark matter " .
Anyone care to enlighten me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA.
I agree it's a nice picture but there seems to be no explanation as to what these colours actually mean,
let alone any kind of conclusion drawn from what I presume to be "pockets of dark matter".
Anyone care to enlighten me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654870</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>edumacator</author>
	<datestamp>1269861240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You have to stand about 3 feet away, and let your eyes go fuzzy. It's a cute picture of a unicorn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA .
You have to stand about 3 feet away , and let your eyes go fuzzy .
It 's a cute picture of a unicorn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA.
You have to stand about 3 feet away, and let your eyes go fuzzy.
It's a cute picture of a unicorn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652554</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269789300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *think* hue is distance and intensity is concentration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * think * hue is distance and intensity is concentration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *think* hue is distance and intensity is concentration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652684</id>
	<title>Old news?</title>
	<author>dido</author>
	<datestamp>1269790500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually submitted a <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/01/07/233252/Hubble-Telescope-Maps-Dark-Matter-in-3D?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">story</a> [slashdot.org] on this exact same topic back in 2007.  The only thing new they seem to have now is a nicer picture, the article seems much lighter than the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">original article</a> [bbc.co.uk] I linked to three years ago.  The new article doesn't seem to indicate any new science that has developed since then, not even links or mentions of any new publications updating the findings in 2007, or even mentions of the scientists who are behind this work...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually submitted a story [ slashdot.org ] on this exact same topic back in 2007 .
The only thing new they seem to have now is a nicer picture , the article seems much lighter than the original article [ bbc.co.uk ] I linked to three years ago .
The new article does n't seem to indicate any new science that has developed since then , not even links or mentions of any new publications updating the findings in 2007 , or even mentions of the scientists who are behind this work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually submitted a story [slashdot.org] on this exact same topic back in 2007.
The only thing new they seem to have now is a nicer picture, the article seems much lighter than the original article [bbc.co.uk] I linked to three years ago.
The new article doesn't seem to indicate any new science that has developed since then, not even links or mentions of any new publications updating the findings in 2007, or even mentions of the scientists who are behind this work...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31655664</id>
	<title>Just a nitpick on relativity and normal life</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1269869940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does " You need relativity correction for guidance system like GPS. So chance is, even relativity has an impact on the GP live.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein 's Theory of Relativity does " You need relativity correction for guidance system like GPS .
So chance is , even relativity has an impact on the GP live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does " You need relativity correction for guidance system like GPS.
So chance is, even relativity has an impact on the GP live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651976</id>
	<title>Now let's do the same with money</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1269783720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's map the financial "dark matter".  It's not hard at all, as it all goes through banks. Except, of course, it would show a lot of things nobody wants seen, such as all the elegant addresses of the dirty business money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's map the financial " dark matter " .
It 's not hard at all , as it all goes through banks .
Except , of course , it would show a lot of things nobody wants seen , such as all the elegant addresses of the dirty business money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's map the financial "dark matter".
It's not hard at all, as it all goes through banks.
Except, of course, it would show a lot of things nobody wants seen, such as all the elegant addresses of the dirty business money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652160</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269785700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could do it based on movement speeds. Things in the background of an image move slower than those in the midground when you change your position--If the thing in the background, a galaxy or something, moves in a strange way, then you can be sure it's being lensed. I'm not sure if the Earth moves enough for this to be useful, though, given the scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could do it based on movement speeds .
Things in the background of an image move slower than those in the midground when you change your position--If the thing in the background , a galaxy or something , moves in a strange way , then you can be sure it 's being lensed .
I 'm not sure if the Earth moves enough for this to be useful , though , given the scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could do it based on movement speeds.
Things in the background of an image move slower than those in the midground when you change your position--If the thing in the background, a galaxy or something, moves in a strange way, then you can be sure it's being lensed.
I'm not sure if the Earth moves enough for this to be useful, though, given the scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652360</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>jazzPecq</author>
	<datestamp>1269787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a good explanation by Patricia Burchat in a TED talk: <a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/patricia\_burchat\_leads\_a\_search\_for\_dark\_energy.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/patricia\_burchat\_leads\_a\_search\_for\_dark\_energy.html</a> [ted.com]</p><p>If impatient, jump to 4:20 for how do they use lensing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a good explanation by Patricia Burchat in a TED talk : http : //www.ted.com/index.php/talks/patricia \ _burchat \ _leads \ _a \ _search \ _for \ _dark \ _energy.html [ ted.com ] If impatient , jump to 4 : 20 for how do they use lensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a good explanation by Patricia Burchat in a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/patricia\_burchat\_leads\_a\_search\_for\_dark\_energy.html [ted.com]If impatient, jump to 4:20 for how do they use lensing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652656</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269790200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...how they know it's lensing, and that the stars aren't just positioned like that?</i></p><p>Much like with regular lenses, there's more to it than just a change in apparent position.</p><p><i>To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong! ^^ [But a good {and compact!} explanation will of course change my mind.]</i></p><p>Once we discovered extra-galactic dark matter, it became really hard to find a different explanation.  Coming up with a way to modify gravity to not need dark matter (but still explain everything "the math" explains perfectly) was hard enough.  Once you had to modify gravity to not even point at the known center of mass, it kinda becomes unworkable.</p><p>And people were trying to eliminate the need for dark matter!  In contrast to this somewhat weird sounding definition of "arrogance", there are physicists around the globe who are arrogant enough to think that they're smarter than whoever came up with "the math", and <b>they</b> could be the ones to prove the theory wrong and present a new one.  One that would be named after <i>them</i>.</p><p>Or Newton again, in the case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified\_Newtonian\_dynamics" title="wikipedia.org">MOND</a> [wikipedia.org].  It's still name-in-history(well, physics) books type stuff.</p><p>Anyway, although gravitational lensing has plenty of evidence already, this data actually confirms another aspect of the predicted lensing effect and its relation to redshift, provides yet more evidence for dark matter, and even corroborates universal expansions.  Multiple theories and predictions working in concert and completely consistent with observation.  That's what you call a slam dunk.  The game isn't over, but there's a reason this is the favored math at this point in time:  <a href="http://xkcd.com/54/" title="xkcd.com">it works</a> [xkcd.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how they know it 's lensing , and that the stars are n't just positioned like that ? Much like with regular lenses , there 's more to it than just a change in apparent position.To me still a imaginary excuse , based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong , but instead calling the universe wrong !
^ ^ [ But a good { and compact !
} explanation will of course change my mind .
] Once we discovered extra-galactic dark matter , it became really hard to find a different explanation .
Coming up with a way to modify gravity to not need dark matter ( but still explain everything " the math " explains perfectly ) was hard enough .
Once you had to modify gravity to not even point at the known center of mass , it kinda becomes unworkable.And people were trying to eliminate the need for dark matter !
In contrast to this somewhat weird sounding definition of " arrogance " , there are physicists around the globe who are arrogant enough to think that they 're smarter than whoever came up with " the math " , and they could be the ones to prove the theory wrong and present a new one .
One that would be named after them.Or Newton again , in the case of MOND [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's still name-in-history ( well , physics ) books type stuff.Anyway , although gravitational lensing has plenty of evidence already , this data actually confirms another aspect of the predicted lensing effect and its relation to redshift , provides yet more evidence for dark matter , and even corroborates universal expansions .
Multiple theories and predictions working in concert and completely consistent with observation .
That 's what you call a slam dunk .
The game is n't over , but there 's a reason this is the favored math at this point in time : it works [ xkcd.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how they know it's lensing, and that the stars aren't just positioned like that?Much like with regular lenses, there's more to it than just a change in apparent position.To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong!
^^ [But a good {and compact!
} explanation will of course change my mind.
]Once we discovered extra-galactic dark matter, it became really hard to find a different explanation.
Coming up with a way to modify gravity to not need dark matter (but still explain everything "the math" explains perfectly) was hard enough.
Once you had to modify gravity to not even point at the known center of mass, it kinda becomes unworkable.And people were trying to eliminate the need for dark matter!
In contrast to this somewhat weird sounding definition of "arrogance", there are physicists around the globe who are arrogant enough to think that they're smarter than whoever came up with "the math", and they could be the ones to prove the theory wrong and present a new one.
One that would be named after them.Or Newton again, in the case of MOND [wikipedia.org].
It's still name-in-history(well, physics) books type stuff.Anyway, although gravitational lensing has plenty of evidence already, this data actually confirms another aspect of the predicted lensing effect and its relation to redshift, provides yet more evidence for dark matter, and even corroborates universal expansions.
Multiple theories and predictions working in concert and completely consistent with observation.
That's what you call a slam dunk.
The game isn't over, but there's a reason this is the favored math at this point in time:  it works [xkcd.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652340</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA. </i></p><p>Yeah sadly it's the <i>data</i> that's 3D, not the presentation.  They located the dark matter in three dimensions, the 3rd being distance according to red shift which is how it's colored.  I can see how it's hard to find the explanation, too, what with them breaking up the story every couple paragraphs with a giant bold link to something else.  I thought those were different news items at first!</p><p>Bad presentation in the article aside, this is pretty amazing work.  What a phenomenal instrument we have in Hubble.</p><p>The article on the <a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic1005.html" title="spacetelescope.org">the Hubble site</a> [spacetelescope.org], while similarly lacking a good explanation for the image, actually talks about dark <i>energy</i> more than dark matter.  Apparently this data also indicates a universe expanding outward from every point, corroborating that theory, along with some GR experimental validation as well.  Not bad for a days work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA .
Yeah sadly it 's the data that 's 3D , not the presentation .
They located the dark matter in three dimensions , the 3rd being distance according to red shift which is how it 's colored .
I can see how it 's hard to find the explanation , too , what with them breaking up the story every couple paragraphs with a giant bold link to something else .
I thought those were different news items at first ! Bad presentation in the article aside , this is pretty amazing work .
What a phenomenal instrument we have in Hubble.The article on the the Hubble site [ spacetelescope.org ] , while similarly lacking a good explanation for the image , actually talks about dark energy more than dark matter .
Apparently this data also indicates a universe expanding outward from every point , corroborating that theory , along with some GR experimental validation as well .
Not bad for a days work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I fail to see the 3D that was promised by TFA.
Yeah sadly it's the data that's 3D, not the presentation.
They located the dark matter in three dimensions, the 3rd being distance according to red shift which is how it's colored.
I can see how it's hard to find the explanation, too, what with them breaking up the story every couple paragraphs with a giant bold link to something else.
I thought those were different news items at first!Bad presentation in the article aside, this is pretty amazing work.
What a phenomenal instrument we have in Hubble.The article on the the Hubble site [spacetelescope.org], while similarly lacking a good explanation for the image, actually talks about dark energy more than dark matter.
Apparently this data also indicates a universe expanding outward from every point, corroborating that theory, along with some GR experimental validation as well.
Not bad for a days work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31655634</id>
	<title>Re:FAKE</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1269869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it is, technically. They didn't just save the pictures directly off Hubble and post them on the internet, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is , technically .
They did n't just save the pictures directly off Hubble and post them on the internet , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is, technically.
They didn't just save the pictures directly off Hubble and post them on the internet, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652290</id>
	<title>Article needs to be listed as follows.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ALLEGED" dark matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ALLEGED " dark matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ALLEGED" dark matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654318</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek TOS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269896340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG Yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG Yes : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG Yes :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652770</id>
	<title>Load of crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269791820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try http://www.thunderbolts.info/</p><p>There is also a very nice book to get you started called "The Big Bang Never Happened"</p><p>I love articles like this, I know they are crap before I even read them.  Then I read them and just sort of laugh with a bit of disgust.</p><p>But really, the color map was just fucking rediculous childish crap.  I mean, come on people.  I think they release stuff like this just to laugh at people when they buy it.  If they are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt.</p><p>You don't have to know anything about the subject to know that this is plain simple foolishness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try http : //www.thunderbolts.info/There is also a very nice book to get you started called " The Big Bang Never Happened " I love articles like this , I know they are crap before I even read them .
Then I read them and just sort of laugh with a bit of disgust.But really , the color map was just fucking rediculous childish crap .
I mean , come on people .
I think they release stuff like this just to laugh at people when they buy it .
If they are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt.You do n't have to know anything about the subject to know that this is plain simple foolishness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try http://www.thunderbolts.info/There is also a very nice book to get you started called "The Big Bang Never Happened"I love articles like this, I know they are crap before I even read them.
Then I read them and just sort of laugh with a bit of disgust.But really, the color map was just fucking rediculous childish crap.
I mean, come on people.
I think they release stuff like this just to laugh at people when they buy it.
If they are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt.You don't have to know anything about the subject to know that this is plain simple foolishness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652514</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, but not very promising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269789000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light. Unless "interaction" has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me.</p></div></blockquote><p>From TFA: "However, we cannot directly measure the stuff as it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e. it doesn't emit or reflect any light)..."</p><p>There's no contradiction. Dark matter doesn't emit, absorb, or reflect light. It only interacts with normal matter (and other dark matter) via gravity. Gravity also bends light, as demonstrated in 1919 and repeatedly since then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light .
Unless " interaction " has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me.From TFA : " However , we can not directly measure the stuff as it does n't interact with electromagnetic radiation ( i.e .
it does n't emit or reflect any light ) ... " There 's no contradiction .
Dark matter does n't emit , absorb , or reflect light .
It only interacts with normal matter ( and other dark matter ) via gravity .
Gravity also bends light , as demonstrated in 1919 and repeatedly since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light.
Unless "interaction" has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me.From TFA: "However, we cannot directly measure the stuff as it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e.
it doesn't emit or reflect any light)..."There's no contradiction.
Dark matter doesn't emit, absorb, or reflect light.
It only interacts with normal matter (and other dark matter) via gravity.
Gravity also bends light, as demonstrated in 1919 and repeatedly since then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652376</id>
	<title>OK, who was holding their fist in front of Hubble?</title>
	<author>pidge-nz</author>
	<datestamp>1269787620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is my pattern-recognition generating a false positive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is my pattern-recognition generating a false positive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is my pattern-recognition generating a false positive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652812</id>
	<title>Re:My little pony</title>
	<author>shoehornjob</author>
	<datestamp>1269792360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lmfao only a truly sick person could see that.my compliments to you sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lmfao only a truly sick person could see that.my compliments to you sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lmfao only a truly sick person could see that.my compliments to you sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657862</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1269880260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha ha ha ha. You dumb bastard. It's not a unicorn... it's a magical horse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha ha ha .
You dumb bastard .
It 's not a unicorn... it 's a magical horse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha ha ha.
You dumb bastard.
It's not a unicorn... it's a magical horse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654204</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>pizza\_milkshake</author>
	<datestamp>1269894480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need to wear these special glasses...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to wear these special glasses.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to wear these special glasses...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652546</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>olsmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269789240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up.  Also, gravitational lensing sometimes produces distinctive <a href="http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html" title="utk.edu">distortions and arcs.</a> [utk.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Also , gravitational lensing sometimes produces distinctive distortions and arcs .
[ utk.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Also, gravitational lensing sometimes produces distinctive distortions and arcs.
[utk.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653092</id>
	<title>Re:FAKE</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1269795420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll? Looks like a badly done Photoshop to me as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll ?
Looks like a badly done Photoshop to me as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll?
Looks like a badly done Photoshop to me as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653154</id>
	<title>Goofy Crap</title>
	<author>thelikeableasshole</author>
	<datestamp>1269795960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of the lamest things I have ever seen.

OMG is this a joke or what!?

If these guys are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt.

Check out thunderolts.info

or read "The Big Bang Never Happened"

But for gods' sake don't eat this shit sandwich!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the lamest things I have ever seen .
OMG is this a joke or what ! ?
If these guys are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt .
Check out thunderolts.info or read " The Big Bang Never Happened " But for gods ' sake do n't eat this shit sandwich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the lamest things I have ever seen.
OMG is this a joke or what!?
If these guys are serious someone needs to pull the plug on these assholes before someone gets hurt.
Check out thunderolts.info

or read "The Big Bang Never Happened"

But for gods' sake don't eat this shit sandwich!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31656388</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very good question. Other respectable scientists got a different theory: it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that oriented the galaxies in certain directions, as it plowed through deep space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very good question .
Other respectable scientists got a different theory : it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that oriented the galaxies in certain directions , as it plowed through deep space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very good question.
Other respectable scientists got a different theory: it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that oriented the galaxies in certain directions, as it plowed through deep space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653930</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269804660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Yes. That's called parallax. Is measurable only in stars which are   close by.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * good out to 100 pc<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * only get 10\% distances out to a few parsecs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * only a few hundred stars are this close</p><p>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit1/distances.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
That 's called parallax .
Is measurable only in stars which are close by .
      * good out to 100 pc         * only get 10 \ % distances out to a few parsecs .
        * only a few hundred stars are this closehttp : //www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ ~ pogge/Ast162/Unit1/distances.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yes.
That's called parallax.
Is measurable only in stars which are   close by.
      * good out to 100 pc
        * only get 10\% distances out to a few parsecs.
        * only a few hundred stars are this closehttp://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit1/distances.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652298</id>
	<title>That explains....</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1269786960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... the disturbance I felt in the Force earlier.  I thought I just had gas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the disturbance I felt in the Force earlier .
I thought I just had gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the disturbance I felt in the Force earlier.
I thought I just had gas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...how they know it&rsquo;s lensing, and that the stars aren&rsquo;t just positioned like that?</p><p>Sounds to me like you could never prove, which one it really is, until you fly behind that &ldquo;dark matter&rdquo;. (To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong! ^^ [But a good {and compact!} explanation will of course change my mind.])</p></div><p>When you see multiple images of the same object, it's lensing.  This is, in fact, how gravitational lensing was first discovered.  Check out this great wikipedia image of the effect:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein\_cross.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein\_cross.jpg</a> [wikipedia.org].  This is actually called strong lensing.  TFA discusses weak lensing, which is a much smaller effect.  That's detected by looking at very distant galaxies.  Lensing changes the shape of galaxies such that there is a preferred orientation.  If this orientation is statistically significant, i.e., too many galaxies are stretched in the same direction to be caused by normal physics, then it tells us that the weirdness is likely caused by lensing.  Thanks to Hubble's ability to paint an incredibly dense picture of background galaxies, our statistics are based on a huge number of samples and we can trust them pretty thoroughly.</p><p>Awesome, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...how they know it    s lensing , and that the stars aren    t just positioned like that ? Sounds to me like you could never prove , which one it really is , until you fly behind that    dark matter    .
( To me still a imaginary excuse , based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong , but instead calling the universe wrong !
^ ^ [ But a good { and compact !
} explanation will of course change my mind .
] ) When you see multiple images of the same object , it 's lensing .
This is , in fact , how gravitational lensing was first discovered .
Check out this great wikipedia image of the effect : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Einstein \ _cross.jpg [ wikipedia.org ] .
This is actually called strong lensing .
TFA discusses weak lensing , which is a much smaller effect .
That 's detected by looking at very distant galaxies .
Lensing changes the shape of galaxies such that there is a preferred orientation .
If this orientation is statistically significant , i.e. , too many galaxies are stretched in the same direction to be caused by normal physics , then it tells us that the weirdness is likely caused by lensing .
Thanks to Hubble 's ability to paint an incredibly dense picture of background galaxies , our statistics are based on a huge number of samples and we can trust them pretty thoroughly.Awesome , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how they know it’s lensing, and that the stars aren’t just positioned like that?Sounds to me like you could never prove, which one it really is, until you fly behind that “dark matter”.
(To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong!
^^ [But a good {and compact!
} explanation will of course change my mind.
])When you see multiple images of the same object, it's lensing.
This is, in fact, how gravitational lensing was first discovered.
Check out this great wikipedia image of the effect:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein\_cross.jpg [wikipedia.org].
This is actually called strong lensing.
TFA discusses weak lensing, which is a much smaller effect.
That's detected by looking at very distant galaxies.
Lensing changes the shape of galaxies such that there is a preferred orientation.
If this orientation is statistically significant, i.e., too many galaxies are stretched in the same direction to be caused by normal physics, then it tells us that the weirdness is likely caused by lensing.
Thanks to Hubble's ability to paint an incredibly dense picture of background galaxies, our statistics are based on a huge number of samples and we can trust them pretty thoroughly.Awesome, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651994</id>
	<title>Zetarians?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269783840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The pic looks like the <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Zetarians,\_remastered.jpg" title="memory-alpha.org">Zetarians</a> [memory-alpha.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pic looks like the Zetarians [ memory-alpha.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pic looks like the Zetarians [memory-alpha.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652226</id>
	<title>Maybe, but not very promising</title>
	<author>neophytepwner</author>
	<datestamp>1269786300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lensing is known to happen with black holes and other massive bodies how does this map distinguish dark matter from other sources of lensing?  By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light.  Unless "interaction" has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me.  I don't see how this gets us any closer to understanding the nature of dark matter/energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lensing is known to happen with black holes and other massive bodies how does this map distinguish dark matter from other sources of lensing ?
By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light .
Unless " interaction " has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me .
I do n't see how this gets us any closer to understanding the nature of dark matter/energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lensing is known to happen with black holes and other massive bodies how does this map distinguish dark matter from other sources of lensing?
By stating Dark matter has no interaction with electromagnetic radiation clearly contradicts the support that it also bends light.
Unless "interaction" has a separate astrophysical meaning which is unfamiliar to me.
I don't see how this gets us any closer to understanding the nature of dark matter/energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652170</id>
	<title>Your tax dollars at work...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1269785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phantom of the Opera. Great. NEXT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phantom of the Opera .
Great. NEXT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phantom of the Opera.
Great. NEXT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652370</id>
	<title>Re:Nice pretty picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...especially when you consider it's a picture of something that very possibly doesn't even exist.</p></div></blockquote><p>Gotta wonder why those <strong>stupid</strong> physicists and astronomers believe in silly things like dark matter, especially when any Real American can see that it's bullshit in 30 seconds flat using nothing but <strong>common sense</strong>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...especially when you consider it 's a picture of something that very possibly does n't even exist.Got ta wonder why those stupid physicists and astronomers believe in silly things like dark matter , especially when any Real American can see that it 's bullshit in 30 seconds flat using nothing but common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...especially when you consider it's a picture of something that very possibly doesn't even exist.Gotta wonder why those stupid physicists and astronomers believe in silly things like dark matter, especially when any Real American can see that it's bullshit in 30 seconds flat using nothing but common sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657472</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek TOS</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1269878760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have no reason to hate humans!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have no reason to hate humans !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have no reason to hate humans!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652594</id>
	<title>Dark matter doesn't exist.</title>
	<author>rollingcalf</author>
	<datestamp>1269789600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists; they're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics.</p><p>Once we have sufficiently explored the alternative gravitational theories that don't rely on dark energy or dark matter, and obtained a sufficiently improved grasp of the laws of physics, we'll be able to explain the cosmic observations without resorting to the "voodoo" of dark matter or dark energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists ; they 're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics.Once we have sufficiently explored the alternative gravitational theories that do n't rely on dark energy or dark matter , and obtained a sufficiently improved grasp of the laws of physics , we 'll be able to explain the cosmic observations without resorting to the " voodoo " of dark matter or dark energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists; they're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics.Once we have sufficiently explored the alternative gravitational theories that don't rely on dark energy or dark matter, and obtained a sufficiently improved grasp of the laws of physics, we'll be able to explain the cosmic observations without resorting to the "voodoo" of dark matter or dark energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657130</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek TOS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269877560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I came here to post exactly this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I came here to post exactly this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came here to post exactly this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442</id>
	<title>Star Trek TOS</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1269799200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it me, or did that pic give anyone else a TOS flashback where they meet some energy-based alien that fucks with the ship?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me , or did that pic give anyone else a TOS flashback where they meet some energy-based alien that fucks with the ship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me, or did that pic give anyone else a TOS flashback where they meet some energy-based alien that fucks with the ship?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653540</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter doesn't exist.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269800220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists; they're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics."</i>
<br> <br>
Dark energy/matter are the names of the observed phenomena just as energy/matter are names for similar phenomena. If they are (as you claim) the names of specific hypotheses then what are the phenomena called?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists ; they 're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics .
" Dark energy/matter are the names of the observed phenomena just as energy/matter are names for similar phenomena .
If they are ( as you claim ) the names of specific hypotheses then what are the phenomena called ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Within a few decades it will be proven that neither dark matter nor dark energy exists; they're just hypotheses to fill the gaps between the observed behavior of the universe and our current understanding of the laws of physics.
"
 
Dark energy/matter are the names of the observed phenomena just as energy/matter are names for similar phenomena.
If they are (as you claim) the names of specific hypotheses then what are the phenomena called?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654590</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>neutralino</author>
	<datestamp>1269857160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This image is based on the COSMOS survey.  There's a better article about it <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/deformed-galaxies-universe-expansion-100326.html@" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [space.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This image is based on the COSMOS survey .
There 's a better article about it here [ space.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This image is based on the COSMOS survey.
There's a better article about it here [space.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657500</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"&gt;&gt; how they know it&rsquo;s lensing, and that the stars aren&rsquo;t just positioned like that?</i></p><p><i>&gt; When you see multiple images of the same object, it's lensing"</i></p><p>More fundamentally: observations on cosmological lensing do not involve stars but entire galaxies.</p><p>Patterns of distortion of the shapes of galaxies due to lensing are pretty much unmistakable.<br>http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/211728main\_young\_bright\_lg.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" &gt; &gt; how they know it    s lensing , and that the stars aren    t just positioned like that ? &gt; When you see multiple images of the same object , it 's lensing " More fundamentally : observations on cosmological lensing do not involve stars but entire galaxies.Patterns of distortion of the shapes of galaxies due to lensing are pretty much unmistakable.http : //www.nasa.gov/images/content/211728main \ _young \ _bright \ _lg.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"&gt;&gt; how they know it’s lensing, and that the stars aren’t just positioned like that?&gt; When you see multiple images of the same object, it's lensing"More fundamentally: observations on cosmological lensing do not involve stars but entire galaxies.Patterns of distortion of the shapes of galaxies due to lensing are pretty much unmistakable.http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/211728main\_young\_bright\_lg.jpg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</id>
	<title>Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269785220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how they know it&rsquo;s lensing, and that the stars aren&rsquo;t just positioned like that?</p><p>Sounds to me like you could never prove, which one it really is, until you fly behind that &ldquo;dark matter&rdquo;. (To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong! ^^ [But a good {and compact!} explanation will of course change my mind.])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how they know it    s lensing , and that the stars aren    t just positioned like that ? Sounds to me like you could never prove , which one it really is , until you fly behind that    dark matter    .
( To me still a imaginary excuse , based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong , but instead calling the universe wrong !
^ ^ [ But a good { and compact !
} explanation will of course change my mind .
] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how they know it’s lensing, and that the stars aren’t just positioned like that?Sounds to me like you could never prove, which one it really is, until you fly behind that “dark matter”.
(To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong!
^^ [But a good {and compact!
} explanation will of course change my mind.
])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652030</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1269784200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA, the closest hint we get to the 3D nature:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>By combining the Hubble observations of gravitational lenses with spectroscopic red shift observations from telescopes on Earth, the 3D location of clumps of mass (dark matter, galaxies, black holes etc.) can be found. In this case, the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.</p></div><p>but yes, the rest is pretty awful... it's just a starfield without any context with blotches of colour randomly scattered over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA , the closest hint we get to the 3D nature : By combining the Hubble observations of gravitational lenses with spectroscopic red shift observations from telescopes on Earth , the 3D location of clumps of mass ( dark matter , galaxies , black holes etc .
) can be found .
In this case , the white , cyan , and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.but yes , the rest is pretty awful... it 's just a starfield without any context with blotches of colour randomly scattered over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA, the closest hint we get to the 3D nature:By combining the Hubble observations of gravitational lenses with spectroscopic red shift observations from telescopes on Earth, the 3D location of clumps of mass (dark matter, galaxies, black holes etc.
) can be found.
In this case, the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.but yes, the rest is pretty awful... it's just a starfield without any context with blotches of colour randomly scattered over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652166</id>
	<title>My little pony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>looks like a My Little Pony pegasus got up there and jizzed all over the lens...</htmltext>
<tokenext>looks like a My Little Pony pegasus got up there and jizzed all over the lens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks like a My Little Pony pegasus got up there and jizzed all over the lens...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652754</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>carlzum</author>
	<datestamp>1269791520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/COSMOS\_3D\_dark\_matter\_map.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">3D dark matter maps</a> [wikimedia.org] out there. This map provides some context for someone on Earth.<blockquote><div><p>In this case, the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The image doesn't really help me visualize the concept, but it attracted me to the article. That's probably the intent of these kind of images, grab people's attention and explain the findings when they want to know what the hell they're looking at.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 3D dark matter maps [ wikimedia.org ] out there .
This map provides some context for someone on Earth.In this case , the white , cyan , and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red .
The image does n't really help me visualize the concept , but it attracted me to the article .
That 's probably the intent of these kind of images , grab people 's attention and explain the findings when they want to know what the hell they 're looking at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 3D dark matter maps [wikimedia.org] out there.
This map provides some context for someone on Earth.In this case, the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.
The image doesn't really help me visualize the concept, but it attracted me to the article.
That's probably the intent of these kind of images, grab people's attention and explain the findings when they want to know what the hell they're looking at.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652604</id>
	<title>Every map needs to have a scale bar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269789660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every map needs to have a scale bar at the very least. We need something to tell us where this thing is and what all the colors mean. Also, there is nothing 3D about it.<a href="http://www.chinese-girls.org/2010/03/chinese-girls-vs-japanese-girls/" title="chinese-girls.org" rel="nofollow">Chinese Girls vs Japanese Girls</a> [chinese-girls.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every map needs to have a scale bar at the very least .
We need something to tell us where this thing is and what all the colors mean .
Also , there is nothing 3D about it.Chinese Girls vs Japanese Girls [ chinese-girls.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every map needs to have a scale bar at the very least.
We need something to tell us where this thing is and what all the colors mean.
Also, there is nothing 3D about it.Chinese Girls vs Japanese Girls [chinese-girls.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652894</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>dwreid</author>
	<datestamp>1269793620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'll find much more complete information here. <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMZ6GSVYVE\_index\_0.html" title="esa.int" rel="nofollow">http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMZ6GSVYVE\_index\_0.html</a> [esa.int]  Unfortunately Discovery is the web site that turns science into an infomercial complete with annoying ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll find much more complete information here .
http : //www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMZ6GSVYVE \ _index \ _0.html [ esa.int ] Unfortunately Discovery is the web site that turns science into an infomercial complete with annoying ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll find much more complete information here.
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMZ6GSVYVE\_index\_0.html [esa.int]  Unfortunately Discovery is the web site that turns science into an infomercial complete with annoying ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652558</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, but not very promising</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1269789360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm only a layman, but here's my guess: although Dark Matter doesn't directly interact with electromagnetic radiation, the gravity caused by its mass warps space just like all other gravity, and that warpage bends light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm only a layman , but here 's my guess : although Dark Matter does n't directly interact with electromagnetic radiation , the gravity caused by its mass warps space just like all other gravity , and that warpage bends light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm only a layman, but here's my guess: although Dark Matter doesn't directly interact with electromagnetic radiation, the gravity caused by its mass warps space just like all other gravity, and that warpage bends light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652566</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>pgn674</author>
	<datestamp>1269789420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...how they know it&rsquo;s lensing, and that the stars aren&rsquo;t just positioned like that?</p></div><p>I think it's because, in a perfectly flat space-time, only light that starts out coming directly at us will reach us. However, in our universe, heavy stuff can make light reach us that did not originally start coming at us. Also, when this bent light hits us, it appears to be coming from a direction that is not its true starting point.<br>
<br>
Now, here's the key: Two photons starting at a star going in slightly different directions can both reach us, due to the heavy stuff out there bending space-time. When they reach us, they appear to be coming from slightly different directions. If we can tell that both photons came from the same star, then we can calculate what heavy stuff made that gravitational lensing effect.<br>
<br>
Also, pretty pictures: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational\_lens" title="wikipedia.org">Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...how they know it    s lensing , and that the stars aren    t just positioned like that ? I think it 's because , in a perfectly flat space-time , only light that starts out coming directly at us will reach us .
However , in our universe , heavy stuff can make light reach us that did not originally start coming at us .
Also , when this bent light hits us , it appears to be coming from a direction that is not its true starting point .
Now , here 's the key : Two photons starting at a star going in slightly different directions can both reach us , due to the heavy stuff out there bending space-time .
When they reach us , they appear to be coming from slightly different directions .
If we can tell that both photons came from the same star , then we can calculate what heavy stuff made that gravitational lensing effect .
Also , pretty pictures : Gravitational lens - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...how they know it’s lensing, and that the stars aren’t just positioned like that?I think it's because, in a perfectly flat space-time, only light that starts out coming directly at us will reach us.
However, in our universe, heavy stuff can make light reach us that did not originally start coming at us.
Also, when this bent light hits us, it appears to be coming from a direction that is not its true starting point.
Now, here's the key: Two photons starting at a star going in slightly different directions can both reach us, due to the heavy stuff out there bending space-time.
When they reach us, they appear to be coming from slightly different directions.
If we can tell that both photons came from the same star, then we can calculate what heavy stuff made that gravitational lensing effect.
Also, pretty pictures: Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652248</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269786480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> (To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong! ^^ [But a good {and compact!} explanation will of course change my mind.])</p></div><p>That might be something similar to what they told Einstein when he used his math to explain characteristics of nature that no one had witnessed.</p><p>I find the possibility of dark matter and energy kind of fascinating.  Maybe it just a problem with their math - but then again, having huge amounts of mass in the universe be something other than what we experience every day adds a little mystery to it all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( To me still a imaginary excuse , based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong , but instead calling the universe wrong !
^ ^ [ But a good { and compact !
} explanation will of course change my mind .
] ) That might be something similar to what they told Einstein when he used his math to explain characteristics of nature that no one had witnessed.I find the possibility of dark matter and energy kind of fascinating .
Maybe it just a problem with their math - but then again , having huge amounts of mass in the universe be something other than what we experience every day adds a little mystery to it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (To me still a imaginary excuse, based on the arrogance of not being able to admit that the math is wrong, but instead calling the universe wrong!
^^ [But a good {and compact!
} explanation will of course change my mind.
])That might be something similar to what they told Einstein when he used his math to explain characteristics of nature that no one had witnessed.I find the possibility of dark matter and energy kind of fascinating.
Maybe it just a problem with their math - but then again, having huge amounts of mass in the universe be something other than what we experience every day adds a little mystery to it all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31681050</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>BillMike</author>
	<datestamp>1269959220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great helpful suggestion in a wellorganized <a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany Cufflinks</a> [mytiffanycvs.com]. I am sure <a href="http://www.mytiffanycvs.com/" title="mytiffanycvs.com" rel="nofollow">Tiffany Rings</a> [mytiffanycvs.com] it will help a lot of people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great helpful suggestion in a wellorganized Tiffany Cufflinks [ mytiffanycvs.com ] .
I am sure Tiffany Rings [ mytiffanycvs.com ] it will help a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great helpful suggestion in a wellorganized Tiffany Cufflinks [mytiffanycvs.com].
I am sure Tiffany Rings [mytiffanycvs.com] it will help a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653282</id>
	<title>FriSt psot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269797340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Love of two is website. mr. de Raymond in his mistake of electing us the courtesy Needs OS. Now BSDI all along. *BSD fear the reaper your spare time reaper Nor do the</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Love of two is website .
mr. de Raymond in his mistake of electing us the courtesy Needs OS .
Now BSDI all along .
* BSD fear the reaper your spare time reaper Nor do the [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love of two is website.
mr. de Raymond in his mistake of electing us the courtesy Needs OS.
Now BSDI all along.
*BSD fear the reaper your spare time reaper Nor do the [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652200</id>
	<title>Meat, Not Dessert</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1269786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any off the wall collection of data up through true random can be used to "make" a pretty pictur, since the picture is actually made by people and therefore made pretty by them. This does nothing but make eye candy.</p><p>What's the results? What's the implications? Where does this put the current pro/con dark energy argument, not to mention the recent 'discovery' of 10 times more baryonic matter than we had seen previously? Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained how that other matter was already known about since to know it in the absence of EM detection meant gravity detection, and you can't tell "dark" baryonic gravity from dark matter gravity from dark energy gravity.</p><p>All pretty pictures, more questions and fewer answers. This is not what we're paying them for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any off the wall collection of data up through true random can be used to " make " a pretty pictur , since the picture is actually made by people and therefore made pretty by them .
This does nothing but make eye candy.What 's the results ?
What 's the implications ?
Where does this put the current pro/con dark energy argument , not to mention the recent 'discovery ' of 10 times more baryonic matter than we had seen previously ?
Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained how that other matter was already known about since to know it in the absence of EM detection meant gravity detection , and you ca n't tell " dark " baryonic gravity from dark matter gravity from dark energy gravity.All pretty pictures , more questions and fewer answers .
This is not what we 're paying them for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any off the wall collection of data up through true random can be used to "make" a pretty pictur, since the picture is actually made by people and therefore made pretty by them.
This does nothing but make eye candy.What's the results?
What's the implications?
Where does this put the current pro/con dark energy argument, not to mention the recent 'discovery' of 10 times more baryonic matter than we had seen previously?
Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained how that other matter was already known about since to know it in the absence of EM detection meant gravity detection, and you can't tell "dark" baryonic gravity from dark matter gravity from dark energy gravity.All pretty pictures, more questions and fewer answers.
This is not what we're paying them for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652944</id>
	<title>Whoa trippy...</title>
	<author>phaet0n</author>
	<datestamp>1269794160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space is so far out man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space is so far out man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space is so far out man!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652786</id>
	<title>To quote 2001 ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269792060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my God!  It's full of stars!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my God !
It 's full of stars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my God!
It's full of stars!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652408</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>aniefer</author>
	<datestamp>1269787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take the same picture twice, 6 months apart.  The picture are from positions that are 2 AU apart.  You can gain perspective by comparing these in the same way your brain compares images from your eyes.<br>
The red-shift tells you how far the star is.  I'm not really sure on the details, but you should be able to compare the two images together with the red-shift derived distance to see if things don't quite add up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the same picture twice , 6 months apart .
The picture are from positions that are 2 AU apart .
You can gain perspective by comparing these in the same way your brain compares images from your eyes .
The red-shift tells you how far the star is .
I 'm not really sure on the details , but you should be able to compare the two images together with the red-shift derived distance to see if things do n't quite add up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the same picture twice, 6 months apart.
The picture are from positions that are 2 AU apart.
You can gain perspective by comparing these in the same way your brain compares images from your eyes.
The red-shift tells you how far the star is.
I'm not really sure on the details, but you should be able to compare the two images together with the red-shift derived distance to see if things don't quite add up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652452</id>
	<title>"Found" galaxies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269788460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems I read recently about how observations of distant galaxies were hampered by the wavelength of light being sought- that they were so far away and so redshifted that when astronomers finally looked for the right wavelength, zillions more were found.  What I wondered at the time was what this might do to dark matter calculations- if a large amount of matter in the universe simply wasn't being observed because we weren't looking for it the right way until recently, even with our decades-old tech which eventually found it, is it possible that dark matter is simply regular matter not observed correctly?  Like you think there are no bowling balls in the room because you're looking at the ceiling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems I read recently about how observations of distant galaxies were hampered by the wavelength of light being sought- that they were so far away and so redshifted that when astronomers finally looked for the right wavelength , zillions more were found .
What I wondered at the time was what this might do to dark matter calculations- if a large amount of matter in the universe simply was n't being observed because we were n't looking for it the right way until recently , even with our decades-old tech which eventually found it , is it possible that dark matter is simply regular matter not observed correctly ?
Like you think there are no bowling balls in the room because you 're looking at the ceiling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems I read recently about how observations of distant galaxies were hampered by the wavelength of light being sought- that they were so far away and so redshifted that when astronomers finally looked for the right wavelength, zillions more were found.
What I wondered at the time was what this might do to dark matter calculations- if a large amount of matter in the universe simply wasn't being observed because we weren't looking for it the right way until recently, even with our decades-old tech which eventually found it, is it possible that dark matter is simply regular matter not observed correctly?
Like you think there are no bowling balls in the room because you're looking at the ceiling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652542</id>
	<title>It's life Jim, but not as we know it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's life Jim, but not as we know it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's life Jim , but not as we know it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's life Jim, but not as we know it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652368</id>
	<title>Cool picture!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So luminiferous and aethereal! Almost magical like!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So luminiferous and aethereal !
Almost magical like !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So luminiferous and aethereal!
Almost magical like!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652308</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1269786960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not arrogance; frankly, a true scientist is thrilled at the prospect of being proved <i>wrong</i>. It means they're answering some long-standing questions and posing countless new ones. Furthermore, the concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are still only theories; scientists have yet to definitively prove the existence of these entities. These theories just happen to be the best explanations for what scientists observe.<br> <br>

The bottom line remains what osgeek above me said: it's easy for you to call the scientists who postulate dark matter "arrogant" considering it's something that has about as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does (which, when it was being proved, required very specific measurements to be taken, measurements that could only be gathered in a solar eclipse...how's that for completely unnecessary to quotidian life?).<br> <br>

No, right now we can't definitively prove that the 3D image referenced in TFA is indeed dark matter. But <i>within the parameters of the current hypothesized model</i>, that is what scientists believe to be pockets of dark matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not arrogance ; frankly , a true scientist is thrilled at the prospect of being proved wrong .
It means they 're answering some long-standing questions and posing countless new ones .
Furthermore , the concepts of " dark matter " and " dark energy " are still only theories ; scientists have yet to definitively prove the existence of these entities .
These theories just happen to be the best explanations for what scientists observe .
The bottom line remains what osgeek above me said : it 's easy for you to call the scientists who postulate dark matter " arrogant " considering it 's something that has about as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein 's Theory of Relativity does ( which , when it was being proved , required very specific measurements to be taken , measurements that could only be gathered in a solar eclipse...how 's that for completely unnecessary to quotidian life ? ) .
No , right now we ca n't definitively prove that the 3D image referenced in TFA is indeed dark matter .
But within the parameters of the current hypothesized model , that is what scientists believe to be pockets of dark matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not arrogance; frankly, a true scientist is thrilled at the prospect of being proved wrong.
It means they're answering some long-standing questions and posing countless new ones.
Furthermore, the concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are still only theories; scientists have yet to definitively prove the existence of these entities.
These theories just happen to be the best explanations for what scientists observe.
The bottom line remains what osgeek above me said: it's easy for you to call the scientists who postulate dark matter "arrogant" considering it's something that has about as much impact on our daily lives as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does (which, when it was being proved, required very specific measurements to be taken, measurements that could only be gathered in a solar eclipse...how's that for completely unnecessary to quotidian life?).
No, right now we can't definitively prove that the 3D image referenced in TFA is indeed dark matter.
But within the parameters of the current hypothesized model, that is what scientists believe to be pockets of dark matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653498</id>
	<title>Re:Could someone explain...</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1269799740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how are we sure it's gravity producing the lensing effect and not some other force?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how are we sure it 's gravity producing the lensing effect and not some other force ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how are we sure it's gravity producing the lensing effect and not some other force?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31656260</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek TOS</title>
	<author>wcbsd</author>
	<datestamp>1269873720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else notice that this looks quite a bit like the prototypical "Alien Face" as described here:<br><a href="http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=496" title="technovelgy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=496</a> [technovelgy.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else notice that this looks quite a bit like the prototypical " Alien Face " as described here : http : //www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp ? NewsNum = 496 [ technovelgy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else notice that this looks quite a bit like the prototypical "Alien Face" as described here:http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=496 [technovelgy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652612</id>
	<title>Isn't Dark Matter pass&#233;?</title>
	<author>WH44</author>
	<datestamp>1269789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was this recent article on a popular news site for geeks - ah, here it is: <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/25/200209/90-of-the-Universe-Found-Hiding-In-Plain-View?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">90\% of Universe Found Hiding in Plain View</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was this recent article on a popular news site for geeks - ah , here it is : 90 \ % of Universe Found Hiding in Plain View [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was this recent article on a popular news site for geeks - ah, here it is: 90\% of Universe Found Hiding in Plain View [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652134</id>
	<title>Nice pretty picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269785400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...especially when you consider it's a picture of something that very possibly doesn't even exist.
<br> <br>
There isn't any "scale bar" because you are not looking at something at any fixed distance! You are looking at (theoretically) blobs of stuff at various distances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...especially when you consider it 's a picture of something that very possibly does n't even exist .
There is n't any " scale bar " because you are not looking at something at any fixed distance !
You are looking at ( theoretically ) blobs of stuff at various distances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...especially when you consider it's a picture of something that very possibly doesn't even exist.
There isn't any "scale bar" because you are not looking at something at any fixed distance!
You are looking at (theoretically) blobs of stuff at various distances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652748</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't Dark Matter pass&#233;?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269791340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that the <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/03/24/found-90-of-the-distant-universe/" title="discovermagazine.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [discovermagazine.com] says "this has nothing to do with dark matter" <strong>twice</strong>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the article [ discovermagazine.com ] says " this has nothing to do with dark matter " twice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the article [discovermagazine.com] says "this has nothing to do with dark matter" twice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652626</id>
	<title>But just the other day...</title>
	<author>lordmetroid</author>
	<datestamp>1269789840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just the other day there was an article about finding the remaining 90\% of the universe that was previously missing by simply looking at the frequency spectra associated to hydrogen. Showing a whole lot of more galaxies than what previously was seen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the other day there was an article about finding the remaining 90 \ % of the universe that was previously missing by simply looking at the frequency spectra associated to hydrogen .
Showing a whole lot of more galaxies than what previously was seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the other day there was an article about finding the remaining 90\% of the universe that was previously missing by simply looking at the frequency spectra associated to hydrogen.
Showing a whole lot of more galaxies than what previously was seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31666072</id>
	<title>Re:Shiny and beautiful...</title>
	<author>CronicBurn</author>
	<datestamp>1269879660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just need those 3d glasses from Avatar. Works for me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just need those 3d glasses from Avatar .
Works for me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just need those 3d glasses from Avatar.
Works for me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31656260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31681050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31668710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31655664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31666072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31655634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_002200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31656388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31668710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31666072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31656260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31654318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31681050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31656388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31657500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31655664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31651976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31655634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31653092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_002200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_002200.31652370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
